English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This is a revised version (of late 2020) of [Sh:700], which isarXiv:math/0012170 .  First point is noting that the proof of Theorem 4.3 in [Sh:700], which saysthat the proof giving the consistency $ \mathfrak{b} = \mathfrak{d} =\mathfrak{u} < \mathfrak{a} $ also gives $ \mathfrak{s} = \mathfrak{d} $. Theproof uses a measurable cardinal and a c.c.c. forcing so it gives large $\mathfrak{d} $ and assumes a large cardinal.  Second point is adding to the results of \S2,\S3 which say that (in \S3 withno large cardinals) we can force $ {\aleph_1} < \mathfrak{b} = \mathfrak{d} <\mathfrak{a}$. We like to have $ {\aleph_1} < \mathfrak{s} \le \mathfrak{b} =\mathfrak{d} < \mathfrak{a} $. For this we allow in \S2,\S3 the sets $ K_t $ tobe uncountable; this requires non-essential changes. In particular, we replaceusually $ {\aleph_0}, {\aleph_1} $ by $ \sigma , \partial $. Naturally we candeal with $ \mathfrak{i} $ and similar invariants.  Third we proofread the work again. To get $ \mathfrak{s} $ we could haveretained the countability of the member of the $ I_t$-s but the parameterswould change with $ A \in I_t$, well for a cofinal set of them; but the presentseems simpler.  We intend to continue in [Sh:F2009].

Are $\mathfrak a$ and $\mathfrak d$ your cup of tea? Revisited